We have updated our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Dismiss
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Next
  • 0

    posted a message on America, The Polarized Society
    What Yamaha is expressing is what a great many white Americans think. That's why we're a polarized society - many people are deeply racist. They're polite on the surface, but underneath that false veneer is hate.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 1

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from JohnSwift »

    EDIT: There are a lot of Libertarians outside the Libertarian Party. Also, you can dispute the libertarian credentials of some people in it. It's not exactly representative of libertarianism as a whole, therefore.


    And I bet you can dispute the Scotsman credentials of some people in Scotland.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from osieorb18 »

    Can you defend this or are you just throwing this out there? I've seen no evidence prior to this point, confirmed or unconfirmed, to support this point.


    Rolleyes

    This was a question during the 2016 debate. Derryl Perry said heroine should be as legal as tomatoes, and he was met with raucous applause. Austin Peterson said that he supports state-level laws that say "you should not be able to sell heroine to a five year old". He was met with boos.

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?409916-1/libertarian-party-holds-presidential-debate&start=7296

    Question is asked at about 1:58:00

    Here's the clip with just Peterson's answer and the boos:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2Nad1b_3yY

    These are the issues that the party deems contentious enough to warrant a segment of their presidential debate.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from Oopssorryy »
    As far as I've seen, this seems to be the issue American Libertarians argue the most. Not if they should have equal rights, but who gets to make the laws to grant equal rights.


    That's weird, as far as I've seen the libertarian party spends its time arguing over whether you should be able to sell heroine to children.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Is the future of the Democratic party purely cosmopolitan, being represented mostly by minorities and the professional class?
    Quote from Highroller »
    Wait, I'm really confused now: what is DLC? I thought you were saying the DNC before. I don't know what DLC stands for?


    DLC was a centrist-leaning democratic thinktank/strategy group that backed the Clintons and other politicians like Joe Lieberman.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from Ljoss »

    No sir, this is not a totalitarian state run by your sociology professors. You do not have the authority to decide what words are/aren't allowed to mean.

    No one is telling you that you can't use words as you see fit. I get that that's a fight you'd desperately like to pick, but it's not happening here. This isn't even a good attempt.

    I'm placing them in the same category because they're both news stories that are entirely make believe.


    Good for you. You can categorize them however you'd like. But your accusation was that "left does the same things that it vilifies the right for doing". The left isn't vilifying anyone under your definition of "fake news". Whether or not CNN's reporting fits your definition is irrelevant - because your definition isn't what "the left" is using when they do the vilifying. In order to demonstrate any hypocrisy here, you'd need to show that CNN's reporting fits the definition of "fake news" used to vilify Breitbart and friends. It very clearly doesn't.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 1

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from Ljoss »


    People have differences of opinion on words and phrases. Why is it so hard for the left to get that? You can redefine racism and sexism as you have and start using your own wacky definitions, you're allowed. But you don't get to tell other people how to use language. If you want to convince them to do so, you can do that. But this is still America, so you don't get to impose that on everyone.

    Fake, not genuine, made up, concocted - it's what this report is and I'm fine using the phrase fake news to describe it.



    So your explanation for why you would say, "left does the same things that it vilifies the right for doing" is that the left vilifies the right for producing and promoting fake news, and you have chosen to redefine the term "fake news" to mean something substantively different from what the right does. You therefore conclude that because you use the same words "fake news", it constitutes the same thing. Tell me, have you also redefined the term "same" to mean something new that would make any of this make even the tiniest bit of sense?
    Posted in: Debate
  • 1

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from Ljoss »

    It's terrible journalistic ethics to publish (or in CNN's case, ideologically promote) explosive allegations with no corroboration. I'm fine with the description 'fake news.'


    Is that what's got you all riled up? I get that you're giddy about seeing the lamestream media taken down a peg or whatever, but how about getting your facts straight first?
    Posted in: Debate
  • 1

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from Ljoss »

    The other way around - what's interesting is the left does the same things that it vilifies the right for doing. Since our fact-checking organizations of the future will apparently be Snopes and Pravda, expect fake left news to take off this year.


    Oh, the left does the same thing? Like how Obama never answered any questions from Fox? Oh wait...
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from Ljoss »


    Potentially false and libelous opposition news.

    https://www.facebook.com/SteveIrvin/?hc_ref=PAGES_TIMELINE&fref=nf

    Quote from Steve Irvin, ABC 15 News Arizona »

    Yes, I know it's trending.
    Yes, I know you can google it.
    No, we're not reporting it.
    Why?
    We can't independently verify it.
    Real journalists have standards.



    Whatdya know? Turns out that many people don't have a problem with fake news per se, but fake news that pushes a point that they don't like. :p


    So, long story short, they were right and you didn't notice. Figures.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 3

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from Ljoss »
    Trump went off today on fake news outlets Buzzfeed and CNN. There are plenty of things that are going to be bad about a Trump presidency, but this campaign that he's running against the garbage in the media is fantastic. Here's the video evidence.


    Refusing to take a question from CNN while taking a question from Breitbart is not cracking down on fake news, it's cracking down on oppositional news, and hoping people like you won't be able to tell the difference.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from warghoul »
    Stopped them from staling an underwater drone to...

    My point was that the coverage was not even close to the 'Russian' hacks.


    That's because there isn't an idiot president-elect out there trying to claim that China isn't behind the hacks. If there were, then it'd be a controversy, and it'd get more coverage.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from warghoul »
    Yet all the hacks from China draws the stridulating of crickets.


    Maybe if you're not paying any attention? The Obama administration has been cracking down on Chinese hacking over the last few years. They even took the unprecedented step of naming and charging in absentia five members of the Chinese military:

    https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/us-charges-five-chinese-military-hackers-cyber-espionage-against-us-corporations-and-labor

    They further threatened China with trade sanctions unless China stopped hacking the US private sector:

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/09/16/obama-china-cyber-security-hacking-internet-warfare/32498869/

    And it worked:

    https://www.fireeye.com/content/dam/fireeye-www/current-threats/pdfs/rpt-china-espionage.pdf

    Since mid-2014, we have seen a notable decline in China-based groups’ overall intrusion
    activity against entities in the U.S. and 25 other countries. We suspect that this shift
    in operations reflects the influence of ongoing military reforms, widespread exposure
    of Chinese cyber operations, and actions taken by the U.S. government.


    But sure, crickets. Rolleyes
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on SJW - Just A Pejoritive
    Quote from osieorb18 »
    Quote from Tiax »
    You've now set yourself up so that you would have to do a wildly disproportionate amount of work just to counter the few drops he's already posted. Otherwise all you've done is handed him a rhetorical victory by earnestly asking for evidence and then letting it stand unchallenged.


    I actually don't need to do much (though I already did before Jay's post)... Jay mentioned the key two words: Pioneer Fund.

    Quote from Jay13x »
    Shocking: Study funded by racist group (Pioneer Fund) turns up results that reinforce their beliefs.


    Every single video or study that was linked either directly or obliquely links back to the Pioneer Fund. Then, all we need to do is look at the SPLC's list of hate groups...


    If your criteria for rejecting them is that they are hate, why even ask for the studies in the first place? You knew they were hate from their conclusions.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on SJW - Just A Pejoritive
    Still eagerly awaiting the detailed rebuttal from those of you who thought it was good idea to ask to see the studies. Did you think he wouldn't have them? White supremacist websites have compiled endless lists of this sort of "evidence". Even if you went through the trouble of rebutting one of his hour-long videos or one of his 100-page pdfs, he's got a dozen more ready to go. It's the classic Gish Gallop - he's not actually producing any of this data, he's just grabbing a pre-made firehose and spraying it at you. You've now set yourself up so that you would have to do a wildly disproportionate amount of work just to counter the few drops he's already posted. Otherwise all you've done is handed him a rhetorical victory by earnestly asking for evidence and then letting it stand unchallenged. A+ debating right there.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 1

    posted a message on SJW - Just A Pejoritive
    Quote from Jivanmukta »

    Dangerous line of reasoning here in my opinion. Calling evidence fraudulent doesn't make it so. At some level you need to show his "evidence" to be faulty beyond just saying it is. Otherwise you're arguing just as poorly.


    You first. He posted a two-hour-long youtube video. You go ahead and work through that, and then I'll do the pdf. Deal?
    Posted in: Debate
  • 1

    posted a message on SJW - Just A Pejoritive
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    Getting hate from people who will never believe them is how they construct their narrative to convince gullible people.


    I think we're about to see exactly how they try to convince gullible people - by presenting a mountain of fraudulent evidence that is too large to be individually refuted. They then claim to have won the debate on the grounds that they have evidence left unchallenged, or at the very least claim that theirs is among the scientifically valid options, and that the debate over the issue continues.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 1

    posted a message on SJW - Just A Pejoritive
    Wow, you guys have fallen for it hook, line and sinker. Here comes the endless parade of pseudoscience and hour-long youtube videos, which you'll never manage to fully respond to.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    You said Trump's supporters beliefs are entirely uncorrelated with the truth. They aren't, as my argument supports.

    I think you know what I meant. You're just continuing the trend of nit-picking rather than addressing any substance.


    But you aren't doing it productively so what's the point?


    If you let it go unchallenged, it can look like you've tacitly acknowledged it as valid, or at least unobjectionable.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on SJW - Just A Pejoritive
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    Don't waste your time, Tiax. Hate is exactly what these people want from you.


    Laughing

    No, they want to trick more gullible people with their Gish gallup of phony science. They want their hatred to be legitimized with a veneer of evidence. People who want to be hated just spew obscenities and slurs.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    The majority of Trump supporter's beliefs are entirely factual things that almost every mentally healthy adult understands.
    Their beliefs are not entirely uncorrelated with truth, that's absurd.


    When things are accepted by everyone, it does not signal critical thinking to also accept them. Such basic facts aren't a relevant indicator.


    You aren't interested in being productive about it, but you still want to say something. Don't.


    I've already been productive about it. What I'm not interested in is seeing such drivel go unchallenged.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 1

    posted a message on SJW - Just A Pejoritive
    Quote from MTGTCG »
    I'm sorry but calling your opponent's viewpoint cancerous just isnt enough to win a debate.

    I'm just calling a spade a spade. I'm not going to engage with Stormfront copypasta.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on SJW - Just A Pejoritive
    Quote from MTGTCG »
    @Tiax
    There is overwhelming evidence that the people of different regions of the world have differing average IQ levels. The general trend in the data is that the warmer the climate the lower the average IQ probably due to the evolutionary demand for higher IQs that comes from having to survive in colder climates. There have been studies where it has been found that the children of successful black parents had lower IQs on average than the children of poor white families(this is due to a phenomenon called regression to the mean). Adoption studies have shown that the average IQs of adopted children from different regions/races of the world are similar to the averages of the region/race they were born in. Also looking at IQ data you find evidence such as the fact that Native Americans, despite the fact that they are generally born into worse conditions than American blacks, have higher average IQs than American blacks. As much as alot of us(including me) find it hard to be comfortable with this information, you have to remember that this is the truth and it is very important to know and accept the truth.

    This sort of pseudo-scientific racism is absolutely disgusting. One might even say cancerous. Some of the worst, most misguided thought that humanity has to offer. Even five minutes of Googling could dispel a thinking person of these hateful misconceptions.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 1

    posted a message on SJW - Just A Pejoritive
    Quote from MTGTCG »
    SJWs are a cancer to western civilization.
    They reject the gift of freedom of speech by advocating for the government to use force against those who are say things they don't agree with. It shouldn't be decided by the government what people can or cannot say, it should be decided by the owners of the property where people are saying such things. This is a fundamental part of property rights.
    They fail to realize that the under achievement of certain groups of people are due not to the oppression of the groups they deem privileged but to their own incompetence whether it be because of genetic reasons(like average IQ levels) or cultural reasons(because of their own decisions or ways of living).
    They reject private property rights by advocating for even more anti-discrimination laws that businesses have to follow.
    That's all I have for now.


    People who buy into those racial IQ studies are a cancer to western civilization.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    Very, very many. People are innately critically thinking, no matter whether they are very good at it.
    It's really not hard to show that many people are quite bad at critically thinking, but that's not the same as not critically thinking at all.

    This is just petty hair-splitting. What practical difference is there between people being so bad at critical thinking that their beliefs are entirely uncorrelated with truth, and not critically thinking at all? On question after question, Trump supporters do no better than random guessing. Once you cross that threshold, you may as well be not critically thinking at all.


    Don't bother debating it at all then if you aren't interested in being productive about it.

    I've already given a thorough explanation in the other thread. If you or Yamaha need a refresher, go back and read it.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    Because all people who think critically at all don't believe ANY stupid things? I don't believe that.
    Nobody is 100% rational, everybody thinks stupid things sometimes, even if only for a time before they dismiss it.
    You don't need to be totally uncritical to believe a few stupid things.

    How many stupid things do they have to believe for you to think they're uncritical? I can produce a LOT of examples backed by polling data.


    Then argue why you think it's a big issue, while others can argue why they think it is of a larger scale. Don't just dismiss it.

    Personally, I think it is a real problem, but not a particularly big one.

    We've already had that thread. I'm not rehashing the argument, and I'm going to treat the idea like the insipid nonsense that it is - by dismissing it.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    The problem is, that's not a fact. It's wrong. There aren't masses of people who are incapable of or choosing not to use critical thinking, even if there are such masses of people being fairly limited in critical thinking, there has to be very few not using any. But you choose to portray large numbers of people as completely uncritical. That's not a fair portrayal.

    That sounds very fair to me. More than half of Trump voters think Obama was born in Kenya. You cannot believe that and also be capable of applying critical thinking. That belief is solely the domain of ignoramuses.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    You aren't really addressing the concern here, Tiax. The concern is that people are abusing the concept of/word racism. And that's a legitimate concern, because people do actually do it. Whether it's a big concern or not, and where the instances of it are, is up to debate, but you can't just brush the concern aside like this. That's exactly the kind of attitude where this issue comes from.


    I'm not addressing the concern because it's frivolous. It's not a real problem. It's just a cover for racists.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from YamahaR1 »

    You all did? Who all? MTGS? A handful of debate posters who spend time pouring over the internet for data? Or literally everyone - including all white people - and all white people who rarely have to deal with race issues unless someone's in their face about it or rioting in a far away city? They all knew? Knew something more than a mob of people are busy destroying their own neighborhood and behaving terribly?

    "All" is in the people who are now worried about what to tell their children. The people who have enough social consciousness to understand the threat Trump poses already understood the nature of race in America. The people who don't understand aren't the people you described as saying, "What am I going to tell my daughter?" and "America really is racist".


    How about my original post - the one that you replied to acting like a bitter jerk, spouting about polls I never mentioned

    Rolleyes


    -I believe social media, mainstream media, television and the internet do a very good job of silencing opinions they don't like

    Really, you think the internet, home of everything from Stormfront to Tumblr, is good at silencing people?

    -This leads people to believe that everyone (the overwhelming majority) thinks the same - that everyone is on the same page

    I doubt many people are fooled. Do you really think more than a handful of crazies thought that either Trump or Clinton would win the "overwhelming majority" of votes? Everyone knows the country is divided. We see it constantly in the news.

    -If you drive out everyone potentially guilty of wrongthink, you've only tricked yourself

    I don't think you've tricked anyone.


    -I also believe (per another thread) that hitting people with the racist or bigot stick on every topic or repeatedly demonizing white people simply shuts down the conversation.

    As I said in that other thread, this is dangerous, backwards, and only serves to legitimize racism.


    -In this very thread alone there's many negative comments demonizing white people - that's acceptable racism.


    No there aren't.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Is the future of the Democratic party purely cosmopolitan, being represented mostly by minorities and the professional class?
    Quote from Ljoss »

    Well first of all it is different. And secondly, as usual, that doesn't actually answer the question, so I'm going to assume it's a yes unless you tell me otherwise.

    Gee, I thought I was being clear as day that that was not an accurate or productive summary of my point.

    Now... do you think that a good amount of these kinds of people could have also voted for Obama in 2012 or would they have been too racist for that?

    Surely some did. I don't think a "good amount" did. Clinton only received about 70k fewer votes than Obama, but surely there was also cross-over in both direction that make the real number in the low millions. I doubt that those people are the ones who like Trump for his giving voice to racism.


    You used the word racist right alongside xenophobic. You didn't have to, but you did. I don't know why you're so upset that I'm responding to the words you chose to use.

    You came up with two examples that you don't feel fit the category of racism, but which surely fit the category of xenophobia. If I had just said xenophobia, would you be in agreement with my assessment of Trump voters?
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on America, The Polarized Society
    Quote from Ljoss »

    That might make more sense of it, but the problem is that here's where the satire intersects with real life. He wrote a paper defending the revolution. I'm not particularly versed on the subject, but defending all of the consequences of the revolution is pretty controversial. As you know, we sometimes take up positions in history to provide context and give people or events a more thorough and fair hearing. Nevertheless, you start combining these behaviors together and it doesn't look good for this guy. You know, someone might argue that Holocaust death tolls are overestimated without being a Nazi sympathizer. But put a few other questionable claims and ideas into the mix and yeah, it's going to start looking bad for you at some point.


    Have you actually read and digested his paper, or are you simply taking the word of the Daily Caller's summary that he was "praising white genocide"? Kind of sounds like the latter.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on America, The Polarized Society
    Quote from Ljoss »

    We're not on the same page here. He claims to have been mocking things because they were *false*: Jewish global conspiracies to conquer the world, miscegenation encouraged by governments to destroy the white race, etc. He didn't say he was mocking things that were *true*. Except he did mock things that were true because the Haitian genocide actually happened. You don't see any difference between conspiracy theories and things that actually happened? So if I say radical Muslims did 9/11 and then say radical Muslims are imposing Sharia law across the United States - those claims are on the same level?


    When white nationalists talk about white genocide, they cite the Haitian massacre as an example of what we have in store for us. (I'd rather not link to Stormfront, but you can Google and find some of their essays on the topic). He didn't choose that example by accident - he was mocking the perception of white nationalists that people like him yearn for a repeat of that massacre.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Is the future of the Democratic party purely cosmopolitan, being represented mostly by minorities and the professional class?
    Quote from Lithl »
    To reinforce the point: Correcting the label from "racist" to "bigot" doesn't improve things any.


    Or "xenophobe", a term I actually used the post he was responding to. But people like Ljoss are so intent on finding something - anything to avoid confronting racism that he was happy to ignore it and lead us down this farcical tangent.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from YamahaR1 »

    I think we are on two totally separate ideas. I am speaking of the shock and awe felt (around the world actually) that America actually elected a man like Trump despite him doing and saying things that are now socially unacceptable. I am speaking in regard to millions of posts quoting "What am I going to tell my daughter?" and "America really is racist". I am speaking of celebrities, talk show hosts and television anchors blatantly saying they are shocked we elected a "racist sexist xenophobic" president. Not just immediately following the election, but even as the states turned colors.

    Its the revelation that many people either feel that way OR they don't see that as something that would discourage them from voting for him.

    If you are selling the idea that the masses were ONLY shocked BECAUSE the poll data suggested otherwise, then you've got your head in the sand. Or you're just being flippant.


    America would be just as racist if Trump had received a few ten thousand fewer votes in the right places and lost the presidency. The worry people express about what to tell their children isn't a revelation - we all already knew America is racist. The surprise was the that the polls were off, not that millions of people are happy to support racism.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 1

    posted a message on Is the future of the Democratic party purely cosmopolitan, being represented mostly by minorities and the professional class?
    Quote from Ljoss »

    Did he actually say anything racist during the campaign trail, though? I could see chauvinist being a pretty appropriate word for him what with the way he treats women and all.

    Let me try to put this in my own words and you tell me if this is what you mean. Do you mean that: he has been suspicious of illegal immigrants from Mexico and Muslims and, while Mexicans and Muslims aren't a race (so that you can't be racist against Mexicans or Muslims), they still have associations with "brownness" and that kind of talk triggered all the people that have a latent (or not latent, actually) hatred of brown people?


    My mistake, I should have included "quibble over what is and is not a race" in the list of behaviors used to excuse racism.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on America, The Polarized Society
    Quote from Ljoss »
    Quote from Tiax »
    Do you actually think he wants white genocide?


    What I want to believe is that he was honest in his explanation that he was satirizing the white power crowd's idea of 'white genocide.' Equating miscegenation with genocide is laughable.

    But then everything else he says - including his first explanation as to the meaning of the tweet belies that notion. The events in Haiti have little to do with white nationalist conspiracy theories. Being concerned that a population which you are enslaving will rise against you and, in the ensuing chaos, destroy the innocent life among you - that would have been a rational fear possessed by a group of people that are apart from you in space and time. Whereas, say, a global conspiracy among the Jews who meet in secret to recruit blacks to get your children hooked on drugs blablabla... not so much.

    You asked for my opinion, knowing that I have limited information. So here it is. I believe that his anger about historical (and perhaps many present) injustices has devolved into a hatred of whiteness and of white people, even though he, himself is white, whereas his anger ought to be directed at injustice itself.

    I don't think that anyone who speaks about an entire race or gender in this way belongs in the classroom and I'm not going to make an exception because it's the correct group to hate.


    So really the problem here is that you're so blinded by your SJW fever dreams that you really do think he hates white people and supports white genocide. You think Haiti has nothing do with white nationalist conspiracy theories, but white nationalists LOVE to bring up the Haitian massacre. It's like their go-to example. It seems to me that you just aren't well-informed enough to understand his tweets, and without that context you're reading into them what you want to see rather than what's actually there.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on America, The Polarized Society
    Do you actually think he wants white genocide?
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Is the future of the Democratic party purely cosmopolitan, being represented mostly by minorities and the professional class?
    Quote from Ljoss »

    Is it, though? He's wasn't just the TV personality that he was before the election - nor was he Joe Populist. He came out and was as crazy as he wanted to be, maybe crazier than that. He said things that made you wonder whether the Democratic establishment was operating some kind of mind control device on him to get him to sabotage himself. He had no clue what he was doing before this started and he ran against a well-established politician. He spent less than her. He didn't have the appeal of being the first female POTUS. The Republican party itself turned on him - the most we've seen a party rebel against their own candidate in a century. The overwhelming majority of the media was in full attack mode against him.

    Not only should he have lost, he should have been trounced. And he won. Barely or not... he won. Dude, how the hell did that happen?

    Because a huge number of people in the country yearn for outright racism and xenophobia in their politicians, and an even bigger number are useful idiots who think any racism ended in 1964 and will spend their time bemoaning the fact that anyone would dare use the word racism, while giving actual racism a pass.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from YamahaR1 »

    Why are you talking about polling data?

    The shocking revelation that despite all the things he's said, the things he's done and the principles he campaigned on, a staggering amount of people voted for him (and enough in the right places to win an election.) The very IDEA that he'll be in the white house.

    The echo chamber in social media is not smear articles and polling. Its people all nodding their head in agreement on (all of the issues involved) repeating the same views back to each other (echo... echo..) because they've stomped out the opposing view, thus lead to believe nobody like Trump could get elected. Because that's racist. And that's sexist. And that's xenophobic. And everyone cares about polar bears. Right? Right.

    That is, the revelation.


    Everyone always knew a staggering amount of people would vote for him. The only question was whether he'd be soundly defeated or squeak out a win. The polling data suggested the former was more likely. That's why people believed he wouldn't be elected - because the evidence supported that conclusion.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from YamahaR1 »

    I believe social media, mainstream media, television and the internet do a very good job of silencing opinions they don't like. This leads people to believe that everyone (the overwhelming majority) thinks the same - that everyone is on the same page. On the night of the election, you could see just how shocked every news anchor (and comedians like Trevor Noah) were. I think the same of this forum - if you drive out everyone potentially guilty of wrongthink, you've only tricked yourself. I also believe (per another thread) that hitting people with the racist or bigot stick on every topic or repeatedly demonizing white people simply shuts down the conversation. In this very thread alone there's many negative comments demonizing white people - that's acceptable racism.


    So the "revelation" was that polling in a few states was off by a percentage point or two? Wow, what a revelation! World-shattering!
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Is the future of the Democratic party purely cosmopolitan, being represented mostly by minorities and the professional class?
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    A perfectly fair point, but I have no confidence that the people who are apathetic enough to not vote are actually significantly less informed than those who do. Whether someone votes tells us whether they are motivated and have an opinion, it doesn't tell use whether they are informed or reasonable.
    And people will always be able to not properly vote or incur fees rather than vote, even if making a vote is mandatory. People already do even when voting is entirely voluntary.
    So I'm not sure whether voluntary voting improves the quality of the vote.


    Non-voters are generally less knowledgeable than voters. See for example:

    http://www.people-press.org/2012/08/10/what-voters-know-about-campaign-2012/

    (scroll down to "Knowledge Differences between Voters and Non-Voters")

    Although if we're comparing to mandatory voting, it may be the case that some portion of those people would feel compelled to inform themselves if they knew they had to vote.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from YamahaR1 »

    That was the best part of the whole election - the revelation of many.


    And what revelation is that?
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Is the future of the Democratic party purely cosmopolitan, being represented mostly by minorities and the professional class?
    Quote from osieorb18 »

    But the northern and midwestern votes made more of the difference in this election. Of course the democrats are not going to win back the southern vote, but the midwest has more potential to go either way.


    The post you replied to said:

    The one they won before that, Carter in 1976, was won by sweeping the deep south. Somehow I doubt Democrats are going to regain those voters.


    Why did you even bother to quote that if you're not talking about those voters?

    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Is the future of the Democratic party purely cosmopolitan, being represented mostly by minorities and the professional class?
    Quote from osieorb18 »
    Quote from Tiax »
    So, in the three elections prior to 1992, democrats got completely trounced. The one they won before that, Carter in 1976, was won by sweeping the deep south. Somehow I doubt Democrats are going to regain those voters.


    One could argue that the barring-a-fascist-takeover worse that Trump is, the better an option the left will look in the next election. Though that didn't work with Dubya, so...


    Donald Trump offers exactly what Southern white voters want. Why would they think the left is a better option all of a sudden?
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Is the future of the Democratic party purely cosmopolitan, being represented mostly by minorities and the professional class?
    Quote from Surging Chaos »
    Every election cycle that has passed since 1992, Democrats have been winning fewer and fewer counties. They have concentrated their vote almost exclusively in major urban areas that they heavily rely on to carry elections at both the state and federal level.

    Not only that, but more importantly the Democratic party appears to have transformed into a party that caters mostly to wealthy professionals that are a part of the "elite". Usually Republicans have a solid advantage over Democrats when it comes to winning high-income households in elections. But in this election, Trump just *barely* edged Clinton in households with six-figure incomes. Compare this to 2012, when Romney solidly beat Obama in the same demographics. There seems to be a clear trend that Democrats have abandoned many in the middle to lower income brackets and have catered to much more affluent individuals.

    To further make things worse, Democrats decided to double down on the same cosmopolitanism that cost them the election by re-electing Nancy Pelosi as US House Democratic leader. Pelosi is literally a caricature of out of touch coastal cosmopolitanism. While Hillary was a flawed candidate in many other ways, certainly one of her flaws was the fact that she was seen as an out of touch, cosmopolitan political elite who could not connect with ordinary Americans. The fact that a billionaire from New York City connected more with people from Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida and Michigan than a Democrat should shock the party to its very core. The Democrats in the house have effectively elected a symbol of the very corruption, hypocrisy and elitism that voters expressly voted against.

    What can Democrats do to regain the voters they used to represent? Or has that bridge been burned?


    So, in the three elections prior to 1992, democrats got completely trounced. The one they won before that, Carter in 1976, was won by sweeping the deep south. Somehow I doubt Democrats are going to regain those voters.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on America, The Polarized Society
    Quote from DJK3654 »
    Quote from Tiax »
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    Well, the left is a larger percentage of the population of America generally, so the radical left being a smaller percentage of the left would have to be the case for an essentially equal numerical group to the the radical right.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/188129/conservatives-hang-ideology-lead-thread.aspx

    Americans' political ideology remained essentially stable in the past year, with conservatives retaining the barest of advantages over moderates in Americans' self-identified political views, 37% vs. 35%. Liberals held firm at 24%.


    I think most supposed moderates can be grouped into either category, and from what I've heard, when you do that liberals have the advantage.


    I'd like to see some numbers on that.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on America, The Polarized Society
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    Well, the left is a larger percentage of the population of America generally, so the radical left being a smaller percentage of the left would have to be the case for an essentially equal numerical group to the the radical right.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/188129/conservatives-hang-ideology-lead-thread.aspx

    Americans' political ideology remained essentially stable in the past year, with conservatives retaining the barest of advantages over moderates in Americans' self-identified political views, 37% vs. 35%. Liberals held firm at 24%.

    Posted in: Debate
  • 1

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from MTGTCG »
    Helpful links updated:
    -New Youtube video under 'What About the Poor?'.
    -Wikipedia page replaced MisesWiki link under 'What is Libertarianism?'.
    -New book, 'The Problem of Political Authority', added under recommended books section.
    -'What is Wrong With Our Government?' section added.
    -'AnarchoCapitalism' section added.


    Clicked on one link, saw this gem:

    And without a central government “representing” an entire geographical area, there would be no reason for a foreign country to invade a large region if they did have such a dispute.


    Does that sound correct to you?
    Posted in: Debate
  • 1

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from MTGTCG »

    Edit:I forgot to address your argument against my proposed gambling system of funding the minarchic government: if someone wants to ruin their life by gambling, more power to them, it is not my job to tell people what they can or can not do, and I shouldn't be guilty for allowing them to excersise their free will. Also all the government has to do to outcompete the private onlinegambling/lottery companies is to match their price/odds/winnings proportion, not that hard to do.


    Isn't the Nash equilibrium of that game for the lottery to collect a vanishingly small rake? If the government is running a lottery with enough profit to fund a military, there's plenty of room for private lotteries to undercut them. If the government is running a lottery which cannot be profitably undercut, it can't possibly fund a military with its measly earnings.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 4

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from MTGTCG »
    Would you rather buy a lottery ticket that supports your national defense or a lottery ticket from a private business who uses the profit in a way that he/she wants?


    I'd rather buy the one that gives me better odds.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from MTGTCG »
    Look, if some one ruins their life with lottery or gambling, then it's not my problem and it shouldn't be anyone's problem except that individual's. That isn't my point, my point is that we can probably fund a small government whose only role is national defense and courts with gambling as the government can outcompete the private gambling businesses for obvious reasons and monopolize the industry. And look, America spends way too much on its military it spends more than the rest of the world combined. We could cut the annual military budget by 75% and still spend more on the military per year than the second highest spender(China). The US could go without spending money on its military for many years and still be the strongest military power in the world.


    Edit: Also this minarchy I am proposing would be very neutral and isolationist when it comes to foreign policy, and would try to pursue a policy of universal free trade. When you aren't upsetting anyone, there is no point in spending ridiculous amounts on the military.


    Why is it obvious that this hypothetical government could outcompete private gambling?
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Melding with Cytoshape
    This is a really contrived game scenario, but bear with me.

    I control Graf Rats, Midnight Scavengers, Bruna, the Fading Light and Gisela, the Broken Blade. I cast Cytoshape to have Gisela become a copy of the rats, and a second cytoshape to have Bruna become a copy of the scavengers. I then move to combat, and attempt to meld the Bruna with the Gisela. The rules for meld say:

    701.35b Only two cards belonging to the same meld pair can be melded. Tokens, cards that aren’t meld cards, or meld cards that don’t form a meld pair can’t be melded.


    Even though the copied card text instructs me to meld them into Chittering Host, the rules don't seem to care whether I actually end up with Chittering Host, they only care that the two cards form a meld pair, which Gisela and Bruna do. As far as I can tell, the words "into Chittering Host" on Graf Rats have no actual rules meaning.

    Does this work? Would you end up with a melded Brisela?
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Practicality of calling a racist a racist in a debate
    I was making a general claim about how friendships work. You were making a specific claim about how these particular friends interacted.

    No, you were making a specific claim about how these particular friends interacted:

    So Roof for some reason decided to turn away from his offline non-racist friends and associates,

    But he decided to take the opinion of some faceless weirdos on the internet over them.


    I don't know. How often are these pundits telling you that you should commit murder?

    Exactly as often as Roof's CCC website: never.

    If anything, it's the other way around. Some people really do just get lung cancer out of the blue. But I have yet to find a violent white nationalist who didn't consume white nationalist literature.

    That's because you haven't examined the reading habits of more than at most a handful of violent white nationalists.

    If he were already convinced, we'd just be asking the tautological question of why violent people are violent again. But he was certainly receptive to it in a way that you or I obviously aren't. White nationalist propaganda isn't freaking Hypnotoad.

    Being convinced that white people are under attack is not the same as being violent. That's not tautological in the least. Why is his apparent receptiveness proof of your hypothesis that he felt "under siege" and not indicative of, say, a lack of critical thinking skills and general gullibility?
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Practicality of calling a racist a racist in a debate
    I don't think we can make a claim like that without having video footage of his life and reviewing the interactions he had with his friends. What we can say is that friends generally have a profound influence on one's own worldview. I mean, I'd like to think that I'm anti-racist because the pure light of moral truth shines through that position to be apprehended by my superior rational mind, but the truth is more likely that I'm anti-racist because my friends and family are anti-racist (and that hopefully this network of people is spread wide enough to maybe catch the occasional glimpse of the pure light of moral truth). So when somebody takes a sharp right turn from their peer group, that's significant.

    You were willing to make the claim that Roof had turned away from his friends, but the opposite claim requires video evidence? Perhaps instead of video evidence, you'd accept the account of those friends?

    For several weeks, Dylann Roof slept on the floor here. He played video games. According to the Meeks, he showed off his new Glock .45-caliber handgun, drank heavily and retreated to his car to listen to opera. And sometimes he confided in his childhood friend Joey, who wasn’t the type to ask questions.

    When Roof showed up asking Joey for a place to stay, Joey says, he invited him in without hesitation. When Roof told him that he believed in segregation, Joey didn’t ask why. When Roof mentioned driving two hours to Charleston and visiting a church called Emanuel AME, he didn’t ask anything about it. When Roof said that he was going to “do something crazy,” as Joey remembers it, he and Lindsey hid Roof’s gun but then gave it back, blowing it all off as a drunken episode.

    “I didn’t take him seriously,” is what Joey says again and again to the people who keep asking the same questions again and again, including investigators who arrived at the trailer after one of the most notorious mass killings in recent American history.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2015/09/12/an-american-void/


    Maybe.

    At what point should I expect this alienation to drive me to murder?

    Quote from Tiax »
    Lots of people smoke cigarettes without getting lung cancer, but if you want to know why somebody got lung cancer you should still start with the fact that their hobby is inhaling burning tar.

    Somehow the lung cancer-smoking link seems a smidge stronger to me than the tumblr-murder link, don't you think?

    Um... he pretty obviously did believe it.

    That's not what he means by disbelief, and you know it. He means he was shocked at what he found - he didn't go in expecting to find it. He wasn't already convinced when he Googled.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Practicality of calling a racist a racist in a debate
    But he decided to take the opinion of some faceless weirdos on the internet over them.

    His friends didn't attempt to dissuade him, they just brushed his racist remarks off. There was no choosing the internet over them.

    Even if that were the case, does that mean I am alienated from my conservative friends because I put more stock in the opinions of internet pundits I read over theirs?

    I'm not exactly unique in calling online communities with strong ideological leanings "echo chambers". It's not just a matter of raw exposure, it's a matter of belonging and trust. Most of the diehards who frequent Stormfront or Tumblr or LessWrong or wherever are almost certainly exposed to other media, they just don't listen to them.

    If this is your definition of being in an echo chamber, it applies to a huge number of people, not just violent extremists. How then can it be the explanation for violence?

    I was around for the Trayvon Martin incident too, but I didn't google "black on white crime" or climb down the rabbit hole of racism. Something within him primed him to be susceptible to this literature. And the phrasing of his Google query is, I think, extremely revealing as to what that was. If nothing else, there's the fact that the Trayvon Martin incident was white on black.


    Roof says he googled "black on white crime" and was "in disbelief" over what he found. If he felt white people were under attack prior to googling, why would he be in disbelief?


    If you're debating the capital gains tax, you don't think different perspectives are all potentially valid -- you think your perspective is the correct one and the others are incorrect. The difference is that "incorrect" in the case of the capital gains tax means "maybe a bit less economic efficiency", whereas "incorrect" in the case of racism means "moral evil".


    Yes, that's what I meant.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Practicality of calling a racist a racist in a debate
    Has there been a rise in hate crimes after Trump's election? Last I saw even Mother Jones was saying the evidence was anecdotal. Let's not fall prey to the same trap of letting anecdotes reinforce a preexisting narrative.

    SPLC has numbers on it: https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/11/18/update-incidents-hateful-harassment-election-day-now-number-701

    I'm certainly willing to entertain the possibility that the trend is not the way numbers make it appear (perhaps due to reporting bias or otherwise), but I'm not sure it's true that the evidence is purely anecdotal.

    So Roof for some reason decided to turn away from his offline non-racist friends and associates, and you say this isn't alienation?

    I don't think it's true that he decided to turn away from his friends and associates. He lived with his friends right up until the murders. He made racist comments from time to time, but they shrugged it off. He wasn't driven away from them, he wasn't berated or made to feel embarrassed or ashamed.


    He turned to white supremacist websites where he was subjected to an unbroken stream of racist ideology, and you say this isn't an echo chamber?

    That seems like a bit of a stretch. Is it really the case that any reading of supremacist literature constitutes an echo chamber, regardless of whether you're also being exposed to other media and voices?


    He googled "black on white crime" indicating some worry that white people were under attack by black people, and you say this isn't a siege mentality?

    If the previous attempt was a bit of a stretch, then this is a huge leap. He googled that because of the Trayvon Martin incident, not because he felt he was under attack.

    So are we supposed to challenge racist literature, or does engaging it in argument legitimize it? I can't figure out where you stand today.


    You should challenge it with the perspective that it is illegitimate and unacceptable. Not in the manner one might debate, say, the capital gains tax, in which different perspectives are all potentially valid answers.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Practicality of calling a racist a racist in a debate
    Yes, the question is what makes someone who is an extremist turn to violence. That question intrinsically requires looking at nonviolent extremists, to see when and why they drop the "non-" bit. So: what makes a nonviolent white nationalist, or a nonviolent street criminal, or a nonviolent Islamist, turn into a violent one? I've already answered the question: alienation and an echo chamber. If you say, "I don't care about these nonviolent types, tell me about the violent ones", you're moving the goalposts, and nonsensically so. What makes violent people turn violent? They can't turn violent. They're already violent. The matter is tautological.


    I'm not saying "I don't care about the non-violent types", I'm saying I don't care about the transition from non-violent non-extremist to non-violent extremist. I care about the transition from non-violent extremist to violent extremist. The answer you previously gave to this question was, "they feel like they're under siege and violence is the only option". That's not really the same as "alienation and an echo chamber", is it?

    Does either of those answers explain the rise in hate crimes after Trump's election? Does it explain why Dylan Roof went from non-violent white supremacist to murderer? Roof wasn't in an echo chamber - his friends and associates were not supremacists. Instead, it seems he was driven to violence through online self-radicalization. He was turned violent by reading supremacist websites, and deciding to take matters into his own hands. He said he googled "black on white crime" and the result that came up was the CCC website. It was the ready availability of unchallenged racist literature that created him, not being attacked by anti-racists.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Practicality of calling a racist a racist in a debate
    Quote from Tiax »
    All you've done is plop violence on the end of an otherwise non-violent spectrum, and pretended that it constitutes a continuation of that spectrum.
    Now who's moving goalposts?

    ?

    I don't understand what goalpost I've moved.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Practicality of calling a racist a racist in a debate
    Quote from osieorb18 »
    Quote from Tiax »
    You're just moving the goalposts. Your statement wasn't about what makes people become extremists, it was about what causes people who are extremists to commit violence


    Where's the line between extremist and non-extremist? Because if one (reasonably) says it's a rough spectrum:

    Gandhi Joe Schmoe
    Average Joe Schmoe
    Extremist Sympathizer Joe Schmoe
    Extremist Joe Schmoe
    Violent Extremist Joe Schmoe

    ... then the cause for moving one way or other on said spectrum could be the same.


    All you've done is plop violence on the end of an otherwise non-violent spectrum, and pretended that it constitutes a continuation of that spectrum.

    Not all extremists are violent. The jump from being racist to shooting up black churches is a significant one. Just like the jump from property crime to violent crime, or the jump from aggrieved Islam to suicide bombing.

    Yes, so the question is what makes someone who is an extremist turn to violence. Not what makes someone become an extremist. Do you really think neo-nazis are a peaceful bunch until they feel like they're under siege and violence is the only option? Neo-nazis have never struck me as a "violence is the last resort" type.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Practicality of calling a racist a racist in a debate
    Quote from Tiax »
    Well, apparently the standard around here is whatever is most convenient for your argument - so I guess my answer should be "people not using the word 'racist' enough". You're the one who's proposed an explanation, back it up with evidence or retract it. Don't try to dodge the issue by asking me for one.
    I'm asking because I suspect we have the same explanation for this violence: jihad is a reaction to the perception that the Muslim identity is under attack from Western culture. When at-risk Muslims feel this way, they seek out associates and media which validate those feelings and cut themselves off from the rest, consuming jihadist propaganda until they're ready to die for the Caliphate. When Westerners engage in "clash of civilizations" rhetoric or call Islam an evil religion or threaten to burn a Qur'an, they reinforce this siege mentality and serve as grist for the propaganda mill. Such behavior is to be discouraged. The key to deradicalization and to preventing radicalization is engagement, not demonization.

    Gang violence is not all that different. Young men come into socioeconomic circumstances where prosperity through an honest career seems like an impossibility and the pop culture depicts men like them as thugs. If they end up in prison, they're surrounded by other criminals and come out hardened. Again, it's getting cut off from broader engagement and driven into an echo chamber that turns them into dangers to society. And efforts to get them out of gangs focus on things like education and trade skills that can enable them to rejoin that society. Just berating them for being criminals is far less likely to get them to stop.

    But white nationalists... what? They're just born bad? I don't think so, and I don't think you think so either. Neo-Nazis get recruited the same way jihadists and gang members get recruited, and they respond the same way to the same sorts of carrots and sticks.


    Rolleyes

    You're just moving the goalposts. Your statement wasn't about what makes people become extremists, it was about what causes people who are extremists to commit violence:


    Extremists are more likely to commit violence when they feel like they're under siege and violence is the only option.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Practicality of calling a racist a racist in a debate
    Give me what you consider to be a fact-based explanation of the causes of violence -- say, jihadist violence, for starters.


    Well, apparently the standard around here is whatever is most convenient for your argument - so I guess my answer should be "people not using the word 'racist' enough". You're the one who's proposed an explanation, back it up with evidence or retract it. Don't try to dodge the issue by asking me for one.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Practicality of calling a racist a racist in a debate
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    Not being able to talk to someone honestly is not a particularly hard circumstance to bring about. People are quite happy to essentially ignore anyone who disagrees with them about important things. You have to make an effort to ensure people will listen to you.

    People listening to you is not a prerequisite to speaking honestly.


    I think they will. Not much, because this is again a reductionist example of the difference I am talking about, even if less so, but somewhat here.
    I'm talking about not calling their views in general but specific statements racist, and with qualification and restraint.

    Do have any actual evidence for this, or is it your just-so intuition?


    Calling someone racist does not deny them a chance to be heard.

    Far more often than not, I believe it either does nothing or goes towards exactly this.

    How, exactly, does saying that someone is racist prevent them from being heard? You had to have heard them out to hear them say the racist thing in the first place!


    You are making it into an identity by making it about the person, and making it an identity means it doesn't go away even remotely easily.

    If I say you're a racist, is that now your identity? Do you now identify as a racist?


    Yes you should. You don't assume a murderer is a murderer because you think they are. You prove it. Innocent until proven guilty and the principle of charity apply.
    I'm not saying don't say anything to effect of 'that's racist' when someone says something you think is racist, that's never something I've spoken against, I am saying you don't automatically take that as meaning that person must be racist. You could be wrong about what the statement, they could be wrong about what their statement meant, you could be the more racist person not them, it could be an outlier in their beliefs, they could lying, and more.


    If they've misspoken or you've misunderstood, calling out the apparent racism is the way to resolve that. If they're lying to you, then you're not going to get anywhere in that debate anyway.


    Calling someone racist does not deny them a chance of redemption.

    Not totally. It certainly doesn't help.

    Of course it doesn't help, it's completely tangential.


    Making the discussion about them being racist makes it not about the racist things they have said but how they as as a person are a racist. Being racist is a kind of identity- you are making their positions out to be part of their identity. They won't think of it as racism of course, but they will start to see it as an identity. Same reason I'm not a big fan of a lot of political labeling and words like SJW- it becomes about the people not the ideas, the us vs them.


    That's what being a racist means. It means you think racist things. It's not separate from your positions. Racists don't have some special racist gene or trait.

    Quote from YamahaR1 »
    No. In other words, there will always be people who see events as an opportunity to act out their existing motives. We simply cannot build theories of cause and effect on such behavior, or make generalizations on masses based on the actions of a handful of people.

    That is a completely different scenario compared to decades of war and oppression driving people into desperation and thus joining a bad cause and committing acts of terror.


    So then it sounds like you agree with me that Blinking Spirit's position is made-up nonsense, and not a fact-based explanation of the causes of violence?
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Practicality of calling a racist a racist in a debate
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    You can't dismiss people and also talk to them honestly.

    Of course you can. How are those things mutually exclusive?


    I'm perfectly fine with this, because we are looking at views now.
    Referencing racism in their position I think is much better than calling the person racist in a debate and not just to help ensure that they will listen to you, but also because it's easier to defend intellectually and often much easier to clearly relate to the conservation at large.

    This is just "your views are racist" vs. "you are racist". No one is going to be fooled by that distinction. No one is going to respond differently to those two statements.


    That's nothing like what I am talking about.
    What I am saying you should give people is
    1. A chance to be heard
    2. The benefit of the doubt
    3. An opportunity to move past their views
    What I am saying you should not do is
    1. Reinforce racist views as an identity
    2. Fully assume racism of those who seem racist
    3. Give no thought to redemption


    Calling someone racist does not deny them a chance to be heard. Calling someone racist does not deny them an opportunity to move past their views. You should not give "the benefit of the doubt" that racism is not actually racism. That's just a way of letting racism go unchallenged. If something sounds racist, say so. That gives the person a chance to clarify or walk back their statement. Calling someone racist does not deny them a chance of redemption.

    I don't even know what "reinforce racist views as an identity" means, or how one would go about doing that.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Practicality of calling a racist a racist in a debate
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    Then you have denied any possibility of changing people's minds.

    Unsubstantiated nonsense.


    I'm not talking about treating it as 'just another valid alternative' I'm talking about treating it as something worthy of engaging in debate. I don't believe there is much of anything that should never be debated on principle.
    Few people are going to listen to you if you don't listen to them. You don't have to respect them, you don't have to treat them the same, but you do have to give them something. If they refuse to listen to you, then you can stop listening to them. But give them a chance to redeem themselves.


    The something you have to give them is a clear, honest explanation of why they're wrong, and that includes the fact that their position is racist. You don't have to give them some comforting illusion that they're not as bad as they are.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Practicality of calling a racist a racist in a debate
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    I find both of the phrases you contrasted earlier to be non ideal for most of their possible usages in a debate- particularly as a direct response.
    My objection is that if you are going so far as to debate someone who you think is a racist you should not be dismissing them, and being very explicit, direct and confronting about calling them a racist is dismissive in effect if not intention.
    EDIT: One thing to consider is that just because you think someone is racist doesn't necessarily mean they truly are- even if they seem like it. I think a significant amount of racism is actually self centered resentment directed to race by ignorance, and not deeply felt contempt of others.


    No, racism should be dismissed. Treating racism as just another valid alternative to be argued over is dangerous.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Practicality of calling a racist a racist in a debate
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    No, that's not what I am arguing. That is the simplest possible reduction of what I am arguing which makes the two sides as close to each other as possible and thereby makes the difference seems insignificant. Of course it does when you are looking at those examples. I am talking about a much broader and more fundamental difference in how you approach a debate than just substituting like words.


    So you have no particular objection to either the word "racism" or "racist" when applied to the hypothetical person you're arguing with? It's only that you object to some other aspect of one's approach to debate?
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Practicality of calling a racist a racist in a debate
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    The later quote is me speaking about another person's argument, not mine. It was perhaps also not worded particularly well in hindsight.


    Then explain to me what word it is about. And it the answer is that you think someone would respond negatively to "that's racist" but not negatively to "that's racism", I think I'm about done with this.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Practicality of calling a racist a racist in a debate
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    Well good thing this isn't about the use of the word racism.


    Quote from DJK3654 »
    The point is clearly to do with racism being an inflammatory word not with opposition itself being inflammatory.


    GrrrAAAAAH
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Practicality of calling a racist a racist in a debate
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    I'm not saying people shouldn't be called out in debate I am saying it should be done in the right way. And that is not a way that allows people to distance themselves from the criticism but in a way that allows them to distance themselves from their racism- and thereby reject it. As long as their racism is very much a part of them, it's not going to go away. I am saying you should work to avoid racism becoming an identity for people.
    If a person does not take the opportunity to reject it and instead embraces it, I don't think explicitly calling them a racist would have helped anyone.


    The effect of refusing to use the word "racism" is that it allows people who are racist to avoid associating their beliefs with that label. That allows racism to become normalized, and entrenches the self-image of being a non-racist. Such a tactic is completely counterproductive.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Practicality of calling a racist a racist in a debate
    Is this also your opinion of gang warfare, communist insurgency, and Islamic terrorism? Because normally when you say this sort of thing about violent people, you're asked to turn in your liberal card.


    I was just restating Yamaha's apparent position, and pointing out that his doesn't seem to jive with your proposed explanation.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Practicality of calling a racist a racist in a debate
    Quote from YamahaR1 »

    When Ohio State wins against Michigan, they tip over cars.
    When Ohio state loses to Michigan, they tip over cars.

    When Obama won the election in 2008 there was a rise in hate crimes following, according to the SPLC


    So, in other words, it's not the case that "feeling like they're under siege" is what drives them to violence - they just like committing violence.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Practicality of calling a racist a racist in a debate
    Extremists are more likely to commit violence when they feel like they're under siege and violence is the only option.


    This clearly explains the rash of hate crimes following Trump's election.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Practicality of calling a racist a racist in a debate
    Quote from Kahedron »

    The Nurmeburg Trials were born of an acceptance that a lot of the German armed forces were only gulity of commits normal wartime acts, and only those that were directly responsible for the truely heinous crimes like those directly involved in the Holocaust and assorted mass murders of POWs were charged and court martialed, and even then if there actions could not be proved they were not convicted.


    False. The Nuremburg trials were born of an acceptance that it was simply not feasible to prosecute everyone.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denazification

    The first difficulty was the enormous number of Germans who might have to be first investigated, then penalized if found to have supported the Nazi state to an unacceptable degree. In the early months of denazification there was a great desire to be utterly thorough, to investigate every suspect and hold every supporter of Nazism accountable; however, it turned out that the numbers simply made this goal impractical.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Practicality of calling a racist a racist in a debate
    There is a difference between honesty and abuse. FourDogsInAHorseSuit did not just advocate frankness; he advocated hounding racists underground.

    Yes, I understand that. I'm not trying to argue his position (although I can see how it looked that way). What I disagree with is the notion that Truth and Reconciliation was giving radicals a seat at the table. It was giving -former- radicals a seat at the table. It was not legitimizing their beliefs, and it was not trying to win them over by sugar-coating the awfulness of their beliefs.

    A bright red line is exactly what the Nuremberg Trials were. Yes, "followers" in the sense of those who followed orders to commit war crimes were culpable. But "followers" in the sense of those who joined the Nazi Party and espoused Nazi ideology but never participated directly in the crimes of the Third Reich were not. An awful lot of Germans were required to turn in their Nazi cards and renounce those beliefs, but otherwise allowed to keep living normal lives in the postwar state. Even Leni freaking Riefenstahl was never convicted of any crime -- she kept making films up to her death in 2003.


    Only the most directly responsible were actually prosecuted at Nuremberg, but the Allies considered all Germans culpable. It was only the practicalities of individual prosecuting and punishing an entire nation that kept the trials limited.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_collective_guilt

    My point is there was no attempt to win over the German populace by telling them they weren't like the others, that they weren't so bad, that their beliefs weren't TRUE racism. Doing so would have only allowed them to keep those beliefs without having to confront the realities of those beliefs.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Practicality of calling a racist a racist in a debate
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    You are presenting the situation very dichotomously, and I don't think fairly so.
    There are a number of different circumstances for the issue of racism to be brought up in and those different circumstances call for different approaches.
    General statements about a bigoted movement is not the same as personally speaking to all of those people- perhaps most importantly because the former does not draw any exact line about who is being spoken to. People have never made a general statement about such movements and specified just exactly how bigoted , or how involved in the movement, you needed to be. Speaking about the movement generally is mostly in effect speaking about the idea of the movement or the effects of the movement not directed exactly at its members. In this case there is very little harm that could be done by being aggressive and confrontational about it.
    Personally speaking to a supporter of such a movement is a different affair. Being aggressive and confrontational is much more likely to prevent progress being made because the discussion is by its nature more personal, making it much harder for anyone to distance themselves from it. In this case I think you should be more reserved about how you apply the concept of racism.


    The Allies were very clear about just how involved you had to be - any involvement at all implied guilt. All Germans were responsible. There can be no clearer or exact line than that.

    Letting people distance themselves from the realities of racism allows them to shield their racist ideas from criticism. It allows them to sweep under the rug the consequences of their beliefs, and it allows them to dismiss arguments against racism by thinking those arguments don't apply to them.
    Posted in: Debate
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.